In the poem "the road not taken" Plato's ideas about human nature fits in with the difficulty the narrator faces in choosing which path to go down. He seems to experience an internal conflict between the different desires of his soul. He desired to go down the path which was "grassy and wanted wear" even though the other path was "just as fair" showing his reason in choosing which path to stick to. There are also some Platonic ideas that fit in with Larkin's poem "this be the verse". You can ask yourself what makes Larkin create such a rebellious poem. You could associate it with his human nature which he would have derived from his soul in an earlier life or you could blame it on his nurture, blaming his upbringing as the reason why he has written such a poem. If you like Plato are a dualist then you could blame his behaviour to his soul. However although the previous idea may fit in with the poem, Larkin contradicts Plato's ideas of humans being "social creatures". Larkin in the poem refuses help from his parents and encourages you not to have children. This goes against Plato's idea of humans being social as Larkin opposes cooperation with your parents and reproduction.

Hobbes analyses human nature in a rather negative and unflattering way. He basically says that our nature is to only think of ourselves, saying that we are egotists. Some of Hobbes' ideas also fit into both poems. In the poem "the road not taken" Frost describes how he took one path over the other as it had a "better claim because it was grassy and wanted wear". This shows how Frost judged the paths on their appearance, eventually going down the nicer looking path because of its attractive resources, much like what Hobbes discusses in the quest for felicity. This decision over two paths also fits in with his ideas of two sorts of rationality, as Frost rationally chooses to go down the path less trodden as if to even out the difference between the ruggedness of the paths. However if all the people chose the same path as he had that path would become much more worn than the other. Hobbes' ideas also fit in with Larkin's poem "this be the verse". Larkin seems to write the poem egotistically as if he is only looking for self preservation. Larkin also seems to want to acquire felicity as he uses strong language and bold statements to try and show his power over the readers as if he is trying to gain felicity, much like Hobbes emphasised how humans were in a constant quest for felicity.

Rousseau on the other hand thought Hobbes was wrong about human nature, agreeing that the primary motivation was self-preservation but added that this was not everything about being human. Hobbes agrees with the notion of living more "in harmony with nature". This can be seen in "the road not taken" poem as Frost, when choosing the paths, respects the nature of the paths and chose the path which "wanted wear" as if he is working with nature. Also later on in the poem he tells us how he took the path less travelled by and "that has made all the difference" which sounds like the idea of self-improvement. Like Rousseau suggests that one human drive is self-improvement, Frost ended up being pleased that he chose the path less trodden as if he had gained life experience. Some of Rousseau's ideas are also shown in Larkin's poem "this be the verse". Larkin displays his innovative ideas on how you should forget family life as it "fucks you up" and that you should not have any kids yourself. This advice that he is offering us shows us that he is trying to not just improve himself but also improving humanity as a whole with his strange innovations. Even if the innovations are pretty odd he still displays advice on how you should live your life, showing that he is trying to improve humanity.

Both poets show ideas that are similar to Hobbes in the way that they both demonstrate ideas that could be associated with the quest for felicity. In the poem "the road not taken" Frost talks about how he chose one path over the other, showing his prejudice for not choosing the other because it did not have green grass. This could be seen as selfish as he was merely concerned with choosing the path which he preferred. This same selfishness, associated with the egotistic ideas of Hobbes, can be seen in the poem "this be the verse" by Larkin. Larkin displays his thoughts on how parents "fuck you up" and how the concept of being with your parents or family messes you up. This shows a concern for only himself as he does not think about how his parents might feel, which could mean that he is selfish. However the poem by Frost does give reasons for his choice whereas Larkin only states that you should avoid family life without giving sufficient reason.

Some of the ideas of Plato, Hobbes and Rousseau fit in well with the poems on their ideas about human nature. However the poems also give their own views on the "human condition" as well. Larkin's poem seems to have the ideas of the quest of felicity which Hobbes was associated with and Frost's poem can be associated well with the works of Plato with the desires of the soul in choosing the right path. Between the two poems the ideas of the human condition contrasted a lot with each other, with hardly any similarities between the two poems. However you can interpret them to adapt to Hobbes idea on the quest for felicity which both poems seem to display ideas about.

These days, I see teenagers on the streets paying more attention to their I-pods and smart-phones. They don't seem to have the patience or desire to pick up a good novel and read through an enticing storyline. Then again, who can blame them? With all of the technology available at our disposal - television, the internet, cell phones - books are, to the average person, old-fashioned.

Many people consider books to be boring. And why read a book when you can watch a movie about it? They say an image is worth a thousand words. Well, a thousand words takes a while to read, whereas one image in a movie takes about 5 seconds to show, and it fulfills the same role as 1,000 words do.

That's not to say I hate technology - I don't. Personally, I think it's the best thing that has ever introduced to our civilization. But I'm just concerned that one day in the future, libraries might no longer carry books. All of the information will be stored electronically, or available in documentary movies.

So if life continues on its present course, will books soon become obsolete and a part of our history, just like tape cassettes and record players? I'll leave you to answer that question.

Most students would never read Baroja unless their college major took them in that direction. Those studying modern Spanish history might, since much of Baroja's work involved criticism of Church-dominated politics and social class divisions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Survey courses in modern Spanish literature should include his work, and probably do. This is, however, a tragically small audience for writing of such extraordinary excellence and relevance.

Baroja is a member of a literary group known as the Generation of "98 (1898). He sits in illustrious company with authors such as Unamuno, Valle-Inclan, Azorin, and Vincente Blasco Ibanez of The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse fame. This graphic and eloquently written novel--made into the 1921 silent film-is considered one of the first anti-war books of the modern era.

All of the "98 writers in their youth questioned Roman Catholicism and sympathized with the downtrodden. Though in their time they were more inclined to dream of utopias, their works and ideas, including Baroja's, have been woven into the social fabric of modern Spain. One might say they were, like many visionaries, ahead of their time.

Baroja's writings are uniquely applicable to contemporary issues. Reading them is like reading sociology papers written today. His view of religion as hindering societies from achieving their full potential was as unpopular with the establishment then as it is among similar groups today. In Baroja's day separation of Church and State did not exist, but voices including his were beginning to explore the issue to the extreme displeasure of the Catholic Church and its upper class champions.

The unfortunate characters of his books are victims of not only class prejudice but of generationally inherited poverty to be quietly suffered in the interests of faith and salvation. The writings of Baroja posthumously contributed to Spain's eventual rejection of this notion. Spain today, as a modern progressive society, has the most stringent separation of church and state in the Western world.

The poetic writing style of Baroja offers readers a literary experience rarely available in today's modern novels. Granted, writing styles are generational and change with the tastes of the times. Many readers put off tackling the classics for that reason. Writing styles simply do not resonate with the modern ear. Baroja's, however, are different. Reading his works makes you realize that there is no substitute for the ability to bend words into riveting images. Truth is many writers today simply can not do it; thus a lesser use of language has become the norm--accepted and preferred by readers.

Anyone wishing to be thrilled again by a more eloquent and insightful literary voice should consider reading Baroja.

From The City of the Discreet, by Pio Baroja

Escobed proceeded. “Knowledge is the enemy of felicity. This state of peace, of tranquility, which the Greeks called with relation to the organism, euphoria...can not be attained in any other way than by ignorance. Thus at the beginning of life, at the age of twenty, when one sees the world superficially and falsely, things appear brilliant and worth coveting. The theatre is relatively fine, the music agreeable, the play amusing; but the evil instinct of learning will make one some day peer from the wings and commence to make discoveries and become disillusioned. One sees that the actresses are ugly...”.

With uncanny timing Ferguson's book comes on the market. What normally would have been disregarded as a historian's hobby book on economics has become a highly interesting and disturbing analysis of the financial markets. The book gives an over-view of 4000 years development of our current financial system. Or maybe the financial system we had until last month.

The American way of travelling might not be to everybody's taste; to see Europe in five days incomprehensible to Europeans. But the book spooks the reader through millennia only slowing down in 13th century Italy where Ferguson puts the beginning of the modern money and lending system. This, as many other claims he makes, is debatable, but I think not really the main point of the book.

Rather, the book wants the reader to understand the historical way money took in a general way, and highlights many interesting facts many don't know. It gives the reader an idea of the beginning of money and debt and the evolution of bonds, pensions, and future trading.

He cites the example of the first bonds issued in England to finance the war against Napoleon, which was partly a reason England did win in the end, with a lot of help from all its friends. Bonds were a cheap way of raising money, which France at that time didn't have. The same held true for the Great War of 1914.

Ferguson makes a good point for his theory that understanding history is crucial to being a financial wizard. Only by knowing the bubbles of old and by analysing their crashes are leaders able to cope with imminent or actual crisis. A CEO on Wall Street has a career span of 25 years, meaning there are only a few who remember 1987.

A hedge fund ran aground in 1998 after being hit by Russian default. A 3.6 billion loss ensued. The founder, a Noel Prize winning economic expert, had based his findings on data as far back as 1993. Five years, ridiculous five years, and he calls himself an expert. Had he even bothered about it, 1917 could have taught him that Russian default is possible, feasible, and probable.

Ferguson believes, too, in the relevance of history to contain any crisis that may arise. He is probably right about that, because whenever there were signs of crisis in the past century, government and bankers could remember 1929 and the errors of judgment made at that time. With this knowledge, none of these crises got stuck on us, as they were expertly defused in time.

This gives small hopes for the present crisis though, as political leaders worldwide are a bunch of illiterate self servers. Politicians are exclusively recruited from lazy and workshy failures, because otherwise they would be gainfully employed.

I do not agree with many things in Ferguson's book, but the general view he gives the reader is a true one. And to get a crash course on financial development into one book is no mean feat.

For a king, the choosing of a wife was a highly political affair. Henry III thought that the main point of royal marriage lay in the strengthening of political ties. For Edward III childbearing was the main point when he chose to marry Philippa of Hainault because of her broad hips, rather than her sister. He was proven right in the event, as the marriage showed nine surviving children to its credit. John of Gaunt, one of their sons, is ancestor to a huge proportion of people in England, as well as to the Queen and the aristocracy.

But Hilton is more interested in the women's side of the bargain. Her investigation brings forth the history of these remarkable women quite at odds with their demure portraits, their aloof tombs, or the saint-like images in ancient texts. Living in the heart of power they had power. Each of them used it in her own fashion.

Hilton highlights the ambiguity of the role as Queen Consort and provides a full portrait of each of the Queens. She forcefully dispels any idea one might have had about powerless medieval brides used as pawns in diplomacy. These women had clout and used it, as shown by Eleanor of Aquitaine who was probably the most powerful woman of her time.

For Hilton, the main outflow of this queenly power manifested itself in pleading for mercy, in interceding, and in charity, thereby providing a counter-balance to the absolute power of the king. The most famous incident of all is Philippa's rescue of the citizens of Calais in 1347. The incident has been commemorated as late as 1889 by Auguste Rodin in a monumental bronze ensemble, or 1914 in a play by Georg Kaiser.

from Flickr

It is a mixed lot that is presented in the book, obviously. It took me longer than normal to read it, because keeping all the Isabellas and Matildas straight is an effort. Hilton helps hugely with this by providing detailed genealogies to sort them into the time frame. All the same I was swearing more than once at unimaginative medieval parents.

The book is a good read and makes one want to know more about these women at the centre of power.

Then I thought:  Would it even matter?  I mean, I have enough confidence in myself as a writer that I know I will be able to always come up with new ideas and stories.  Somehow, the thought of losing almost three years of scripts, outlines and research scared me to bits though.  I store all of my goodies and tid bits on here.

I have almost three years of writing invested, which is more time than Henry David spent at Walden Pond.

Like Henry, I long for simpler times and isolation.  Not isolation for isolation's sake, but in order to grasp a better view of the human life and social conditions of our times.  I had no idea I even ran these parallels with him until my essay reading prompted me to look up his other writings via Wikipedia.  Even though he had a pen and I have a keyboard as my instrument, the spirit of the writer runs deep within us both.  I feel this weird, eerie, almost transcendental connection to the dead writer when I read him, his ideas for his time and learn something about his life.

I grasp on to the similarities, yet the contrasts are glaring.  It doesn't matter.  I've been accused of being colloquial in virtually every English class I've ever taken.  My twisted mind tells me it's the writers of the past, the writers that mattered and have stood the test of time are speaking through me.  I feel as though I can channel their energy, like a golden leaf being carried by the wind.

I have felt this way with Joyce, Faulkner, Flaubert----and so on.  Do our thoughts ever really die with us?  Not for writers, not for mine.  It's the need and drive to preserve thoughts by making pictures in minds with words that ultimatley drive a writer to write.  At least it is so for me.  We're historians of a creative type.  Are written words really any different than music notes?  I'm writing symphonies, yet words are only heard when spoken. 

So if I lost everything, I'd simply die in isolation with only the shattered thoughts to keep me company.

The Second World War began on September 1st 1939, when German forces invaded Poland (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). France and Britain together, declared war on Germany. After Poland was captured, British and French governments came together, trying to think of a political solution (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). But on April 9th, 1940, all hell broke loose when German forces called Blitzkrieg, entered Denmark and Norway, capturing both countries (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). Allied forces tried to help, but were stopped easily by anti-aircraft military. Then, on May 10th, 1940, Germany entered Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and France, and gained dominant (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). Allied bombers were again sent to stop and take out the Blitzkrieg, but were demolished by anti-aircraft guns (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). The Blitzkrieg forced the French back to the coast at a base called Dunkirk (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). Here, they managed to escape back to Britain by boat. By the start of July, due to the warning from the French, RAF forces had built their forces to over 640 planes, but were still down in number (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). They also came up with two new and different kinds of aircraft called Spitfires and Hurricanes. Each carried an advanced fuel tank and 8 machine guns (“The Battle of Britain: 1940-1941” npg). This battle was to be conducted only by air power, and it would be the first in history (“The Battle of Britain: 1940-1941” npg). Britain stood alone in the fight (“The Battle of Britain: 1940-1941” npg). The Battle was about to begin and it was the summer of June, 1940 (“The Battle of Britain: 1940-1941” npg).

On July 9th, 1940, Pilot Officer David M. Crook and two fellow RAF caught sight of the enemy. 9 ME 110's were diving fast and ready to attack (Rice 16). “I gave him a terrific blast of fire at very close range. Even in the heat of the moment, I will remember my amazement at the shattering effect of my fire.” - David M. Crook (Rice 16). British RAF was the main source of air defense for the Brit's (“The Battle of Britain: 1940-1941” npg), and David M. Crook had done his job. One of his fellow pilots narrowly escaped, while the other one was shot down, oblivious to what was going on. German air forces had every plane carrying small bomb loads which delivered an unbelievable amount of damage. They had 320 dive bombers and 1,260 medium bombers prepared (“The Battle of Britain: 1940-1941” npg).

Phase 1 of the battle began on July 10th, 1940, and ended on August 7th, 1940 (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). In this phase, Hitler was just trying to find a weakness in British forces, which could bring them to their knees (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). On July 10th, 1940, Luftwaffe attacked British convoys and ships at attempt to win the English Channel. Fortunately, they failed, but they managed to destroy several British radar towers, one of their main defense systems (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). The main reason Hitler wanted the channel, was to carry out his idea of operation “Sea Lion” (“Battle of Britain” Grolier npg) (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). Operation “Sea Lion” was supposed to drop thousands of men along Britain's South Coast, and then distract British forces on the ground, while Luftwaffe attacked in the air (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). German “Stuka” bombers were ready to attack the channel again, when they were withdrawn from the battle, due to their lack of speed (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). Also because the RAF ground to air communication helped the planes know where the enemies were (Laurie npg). If the “Stuka” bombers were to slow, they would be shot down immediately. British forces continued to hold the channel, but how long could they do so?

Phase 2 had begun. Phase 2 took place from August 8th, to the 6th of September (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). Hitler wanted to destroy all the RAF command posts during this phase (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). Raids dramatically increased in size and number (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). On the 13th of August, 1940, or “Eagle Day” (“Battle of Britain” Grolier npg), Luftwaffe attacked the RAF at high and low altitudes all at the same time (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). Losing too many RAF, the British were desperate, and almost at their knees. Night raids began, keeping the RAF alert at all times (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). But they kept on losing more men. They then had to evacuate children out of London, due to an accidental bombing (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). The civilians were hiding in fear. But just as Britain thought it was over, Hitler changed his tactics, and this began Phase 3 (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg).

Phase 3 took place from the 7th of September to the 5th of October (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). Hitler had changed his tactics, and instead of attacking the South Coast, he changed his targets to civilian factories, where the RAF planes were being made (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). His change of tactics proved to be the BIG mistake (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). It gave Britain the time needed to fully repair radar towers and airfields. Their defenses were fully restored. But the bombing continued upon the factories (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). But knowing Hitler's attack plan, the British assembled a large number of fighters to break up the German Formation and stop them from their next bombing (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). So with that, the British had restored their defense forces, but they could do little to prevent the continuous night raids.

The final phase had started (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). Phase 4 took place from the 6th of October to the 31st of October (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). German bombers had stopped all day raids, and focused all forces on night raids (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). The result of this decision was the making of thousands of help centers around London for the injured. Despite the terrific loss in Luftwaffe fighters, attacks intensified (“Battle of Britain” Grolier npg). But since the RAF had increased, the German forces were heavily decreasing (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). Britain was on a comeback. And finally, by the end of October, with the German losses so large, and RAF number still increasing, the RAF pushed away the German forces, and Hitler changed his target to Russia (“Battle of Britain” DeltaWeb npg). And two days later, on September 17th, 1940, Hitler postponed operation “Sea Lion” indefinitely (“Battle of Britain” Grolier npg). “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many few.” - Winston Churchill (Laurie npg). “We still keep to this day, and I hope we will always keep it, in commemoration of our victory.” - Harold Macmillan (“The Battle of Britain: 1940-1941” npg). During this battle, the British RAF never gave up on defending their country, even though they were taking damage, bomb after bomb. And during Homer's battle, he never gave up his passion, although he was bombarded by his dad's disappointment and criticism. They both run along the same line. Unfortunately the battle was not over, because new German technology was later developed and the years following the battle were almost as bad as the battle itself. This new technology was the V1 and V2 rockets (“Battle of Britain” Grolier npg).

The V1 rockets could travel a good 250 miles before running out of fuel and reach speeds up to 375 miles an hour (Feldman 360). They had a design that would take them directly to their target much unlike their later discovery of the V2 (Rice 37). In October and December, 1942 (“Flying Bombs and Rockets” npg), the first successful test of the V1 rocket was made (“Flying Bombs and Rockets” npg). In June of 1943, the British Intelligence scoped out a secret base at Peenemunde, which was producing the rockets (“Flying Bombs and Rockets” npg). And just two months later, in August, British forces bombed Peenemunde, slowing the rocket production. But there were still more rocket-producing bases. Although some were destroyed in the winter of 1943 (“Flying Bombs and Rockets” npg), on June 12th, 1944 (“Flying Bombs and Rockets” npg), the first V1 rocket was launched at London (Stolley 286). The next day, June 13th, 6 civilians died from the painful explosion (“Flying Bombs and Rockets” npg). Luckily, the discovery of parts of a V1 rocket by a few British Civilians led the British Intelligence to further understand how the rockets work (Feldman 353). Londoners later named the V1 rockets “buzz bombs” because the rocket produced a buzzing noise while it whizzed through the air (Feldman 360). When the buzzing stopped, it meant that the bomb had run out of fuel, and it would soon crash down to earth, carrying its one ton of explosive fuel (Feldman 360). Over 2,000 V1s killed 6,000 civilians, wounded 40,000 and damaged over 200,000 homes within the city (Stolley 286). Of the 35,000 made, 9,000 V1s were fired at London (Feldman 361). On June 16th, 1944, British Newspapers issued a warning to all civilians of the V1 rockets (“Flying Bombs and Rockets” npg). But on June 18th, 1944, a V1 rocket landed on a morning service chapel, killing 141 civilians (“Flying Bombs and Rockets” npg). Because of this, defense was created. They placed anti-aircraft guns and barrage balloons (“Flying Bombs and Rockets” npg) along the border of England, hoping to stop the incoming rockets (“The Battle of Britain: 1940-1941” npg). Over 2 million bomb shelters were made in Britain, hoping to prevent more fatalities (“Battle of Britain” Grolier npg). They even attempted a shot at having an RAF fighter fly along side the V1s and then with their wing, slowly turn it around (Battle of Britain DeltaWeb npg). Fortunately, it worked, and this also prevented what could have been several more casualties. So the British thought that everything was good until the development of the V2 rockets, a much more complex and dangerous design. But before I explain the V2 rockets, I want to compare Homer to the German Scientists. The Germans came up with a very well designed and equipped V1 rocket. It was useful and got the job done. But they strived to improve their rockets, so that it would do more damage and be better designed. Homer did the same with his rockets. Even if his current rocket was soaring high, he always wanted it to soar higher. So he would go out and find a new rocket fuel, or a new rocket design. Both Homer and the Germans pushed and exceeded their work limit so that they could both come up with an improved rocket.

Now, the V2 rockets, unlike the V1s, soared up through the air and out of sight, then after reaching a certain altitude and distance, it turned and headed right for their target (Rice 38). They were over 50 feet long and they traveled at the speed of sound (Feldman 361), or 3,600 mph (Rice 39). The V2 rockets, like the V1s are fired from bases in Nazi occupied France (Rice 32). The V stands for vergeltungswaffen or “vengeance weapons” (Stolley 286). After Hitler's viewing of the V2 rockets, he believed that he could finally conquer Britain and surrounding countries that he had not yet overtaken (Stolley 286). But the deployment of the V2 rockets was postponed because of the bombing at Peenemunde (Stolley 286), a remote island in the Baltic Sea (Feldman 363). Finally, on September 8th, 1944, the first V2 rocket hit and area called Stavely Road Chaswick (“Flying Bombs and Rockets” npg). And this continued for a whole year, continuous bombs landing on London, killing people constantly. But finally on the 27th of March, 1945, the final V2 rocket landed in London, only killing one person (“Flying Bombs and Rockets” npg). And the final V1 rocket landed at Swanscumbe on March 28th (“Flying Bombs and Rockets” npg), causing no last fatalities.

So you might ask, how did this event inspire Homer Hickam Jr. as he worked to discover rocket propulsion techniques? Well you see, the Germans kept trying new things for their rockets. Although their usage was horribly wrong, they kept testing their rockets until they got it right, just like Homer. He tested many different propulsion chemicals and when he finally got the right one he exceeded his limit, and tried to find a new and better one. The Germans had a V1 rocket, but then pushed themselves to find a better and more powerful one. Then they discovered the V2, a BETTER and more useful rocket. Homer may have looked back on the years during and following the Battle of Britain, or he may have not. But idea's like this inspired Homer to push himself to the limit, so that he could become more successful in his journey. He was successful at becoming a worker for NASA, and the Germans were successful for killing British Civilians. They may have been for a different cause, but they both take parallel paths. That's why I picked this event to reflect back on October Sky and compare the two. These were two totally different situations, but they have pretty much the same idea.

McPherson has a likeness for Uncle Tom’s Cabin because of both its message and its impact on American history. In first comparing it to the romantic novel Gone With the Wind, he showed how Gone With the Wind glamorized the Old South and romanticized the Confederacy, while Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped shape attitudes that would deeply devastate both. Not only does Uncle Tom’s Cabin have its moments of comedy, drama, and appeals to the reader, but it also displays morality, a competition between good and evil. Uncle Tom’s Cabin showed the cruelties of slavery and how they could impact the domestic life. Since the 19^th century witnessed the rise of the middle class, people were horrified at the thought of separating families, since the family was considered sacred. McPherson also admired the fact that Harriet Beecher Stowe based the characters in her novel on people in real life. Stowe apparently knew more about slavery than people assumed, from being brought into contact with many fugitives fleeing into Ohio. One of her brothers lived in Louisiana and gave Stowe the material that brought about the image of Simon Legree and his plantation. Basically, McPherson admired Uncle Tom’s Cabin, praising it as one of the most influential novels of the 19^th century.

The importance of Uncle Tom’s Cabin was truly significant to James M. McPherson. He enjoyed reading the literary work in high school in the 1950s and argued with his professors in college over its true significance. McPherson is determined to make Uncle Tom’s Cabin be seen by all as a global masterpiece, demonstrating the significant flaws in American government during the existence of a divided nation.

It's dangerous to let novelists tell history. In fact, it's dangerous to let anyone tell history who doesn't have to stick as close as possible to the facts. But novelists are especially bad, since they have no commitment to truth, only to story. I can't think of any anti-Confederate or anti-slavery book that has had as large an impact as Gone with the Wind, and because of that, we still get the history of the Civil War dead wrong. But this essay isn't about Mitchell's book; it's about another popular story which claims to tell us something about history: The Scarlet Pimpernel, by Baroness Orczy.

I can't think of any book, apart from A Tale of Two Cities, which has had as large an impact on our understanding of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. I'm not sure how well-read or even well-known the book is these days, but it still exercises a tremendous indirect influence. The book's attitude toward the revolution is more or less the attitude of most people today. Its telling of events is the telling we remember and teach.

Dickens' telling was different. He was a social reformer and radical in many ways, and he realized, in a sense, that the aristocrats had it coming. He was horrified by the bloodshed and excesses of the Reign of Terror, but he wasn't pro-aristocrat or pro-royalist in his stance. Dickens' telling, however, published in 1859, has been superseded by The Scarlet Pimpernel, which came out in 1908. And I wouldn't be surprised if the second book, even if it's not read as often, has had a larger impact on the way we think about the French Revolution.

We see this influence all over the place. The whole idea of the Revolution as a wild orgy of blood and guts, of peasants and laborers running through the streets searching for treacherous "aristos," of bloodthirsty revolutionaries decapitating cart-loads of the rich and powerful-all of it stems from Baroness Orczy's book. What's more, the book helped to revive the old Three Musketeers "Romantic Hero" concept. True, the Scarlet Pimpernel is sort of an inverted version of this, who intervenes on the side of the rich and powerful, but his image is tied up in the masked hero myth. To give an example, there was an old Monty Python sketch called "Dennis Moore," which was a parody of the romantic swashbuckler genre. Dennis, of course, steals from the rich and gives to the poor. The only things he steals, however, are lupins ("What do you mean ‘lupins?'"). One of his aristocratic enemies bemoans at one point, "He seeks them here; he seeks them there; he seeks those lupins everywhere," which is a reference to a line from the book.

Defenders of Gone with the Wind claim that you can't judge its history. It's a novel, a romance, and if people look for the facts in its pages that's their own problem. They would probably say the same of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Don't view it as a historical narrative. View it as a pleasant adventure. But unfortunately, these books aren't so innocent or harmless. Whether it's a good idea or not, people do, in fact, get their history from these novels. And the history they tell is inaccurate, and even harmful.

I think it's interesting that the two most famous books on the French Revolution came from English authors. The French haven't been allowed to tell their own story-or at least, we don't listen to them when they do. I haven't read the most famous 19th-century French novel on the Reign of Terror, "Quatrevingt-treize" (or "Ninety-Three") by Victor Hugo, but apparently, it tells a very different story. Of course, the French experienced many revolutions after the first and best-known 1789 revolt. Three, in fact-one in 1830 (the subject of Les Miserables), one in 1848, and one in 1870.

Only the last one was able to create a republic that stuck. After a century-long struggle like that, the French were more willing to look back on the first botched attempt at overthrowing the monarchy with a bit of sympathy. Victor Hugo himself, although a conservative as a young man, spent most of his adult life as a radical republican and anti-royalist. He felt sympathy for the first revolutionaries, and his telling of the Reign of Terror is interesting. Published not long after the 1870 revolution, it was his last novel. It doesn't cover up the brutality of the revolutionaries, but it does take their side against the monarchists.

But that doesn't appeal to the rest of us. For some reason we love to hate the revolutionaries, and the British telling of the Revolution and the Reign of Terror has stuck in our minds.

It certainly stuck in mine. When I was growing up, the Scarlet Pimpernel more or less defined the French Revolution for me. It didn't teach me much that was true. But it did fill my head with the image of the blood-stained guillotine. I had seen the movie as a kid, and later, my parents took me to see the play. At the time, the guillotine seemed to me a lot like the Salem witch trials-something unspeakably old and nasty which made me glad to live in the modern world. I never doubted the accuracy of the story. Sir Percy Blakeney, the Pimpernel himself, was to me the height of heroism. Not only did he risk his neck for the sake of others, he did it in secret, sporting all the time the ridiculous front of a carefree fop.
But the problem with all of this is that it tells a lie about history. What's more, it's a lie that disparages democracy, the working class, and, in a very real way, the ability of ordinary people to have a say in their own government.

This is plain enough given Baroness Orczy's background. There's the aristocratic name, for one thing. She was born to Hungarian land-owners and had to leave the country as a young girl due to the threat of a peasant revolt. She probably internalized early on a great deal of elitism and anti-democratic feeling. Her family travelled across Europe, from Budapest to Paris. Orczy attended art school before moving to England, where she chucked her artistic training and became happily married. She made several attempts at a writing career, but success eluded her until she wrote a play, along with her husband, based on one of her short stories. And it was, of course, The Scarlet Pimpernel, which she almost immediately novelized. After the success of the novel, the Baroness started churning out one sequel after another.

The first thing I noticed about the novel after I picked it up was how different the story is compared with what I remembered. My young brain had been filled with images of blood running through the streets of Paris. In reality, only one chapter describes the guillotine-it is the first chapter, and it is a short one. Most of the book takes place in England, actually, and deals with cross-channel spy intrigues. Only in the last hundred pages or so do the main characters visit the scene of the Reign of Terror. What's more, I was expecting a sort of Rafael Sabatini-esque swashbuckling story. But The Scarlet Pimpernel's action is fairly muted for the most part-no sword duels or battles. Finally, I remembered Sir Percy Blakeney dominating the narrative above all others. But most of Orczy's book follows his wife, Marguerite Blakeney, an ex-Frenchwoman. She doesn't even know her husband's true identity until well into the book.

Now, the Scarlet Pimpernel is a ridiculous book in many ways. This is due to the style of its writing as well as to what actually happens in its pages. Orczy develops a uniquely exhausting style. Everything is repeated again and again. If Marguerite is worried about her husband or her brother, rest assured that we will hear about it at least twelve times. If she is tired or unhappy, again, no need to pay too close attention to the fact since the Baroness will remind us of it before long. The plot is also rehashed every few pages. Marguerite is, for much of the book, torn between saving her brother from the guillotine and betraying the elusive Scarlet Pimpernel. The details of this dilemma will be explained again and again in case you didn't understand it the first time. The characters are all described is ways that allow you to recognize and judge them from the very outset. The wicked revolutionary Chauvelin has a "fox-like face." We are told this fact at least a thousand times. At one point it becomes "ferret-like," but only briefly. His eyes have the power to turn green when he's being really wicked, his hands are "talon-like," and their touch induces "unspeakable horror."

As for Marguerite, we are constantly reminded that she is "the beautiful woman." She is "pretty," "young," "fresh," etc. on every page. We are not allowed to forget for an instant that she is known as "the cleverest woman in Europe" and the best-looking one to boot. Everywhere she goes she is accompanied by a hoard of admiring gentlemen dying to kiss her hand or help her into her carriage. The hand in question is described as "dainty," "tiny," and so forth at every mention. Her laugh is "childlike," as is her voice, and her feet are apparently as small as her hands. We are not allowed to forget this for even an instant.
Apart from the Baroness' descriptions, the book is also fraught with ludicrous displays of emotion. At one point an aristocratic refugee cries for her husband who's stuck back in France and her daughter (who is also "dainty," and "tiny," and all the rest of it) throws herself in her arms and kisses her tears away. Or when Sir Percy himself feels the need to show his love for his wife after she has left the vicinity, he lies in the dirt on his belly and kisses every spot on the ground which her "dainty foot" (yes, it's dainty again) happened to touch.

But this is all well and good. Part of the fun of reading any swashbuckling story lies in its innocence and unintentional absurdity. But The Scarlet Pimpernel isn't innocent: that's the problem.

The book starts off with a look at Revolutionary France. It's not clear that Baroness Orczy did a scrap of research or read a single book on the Revolution or the Reign of Terror. The depictions are wildly inaccurate and offensive. It's almost funny, in fact, the way Orczy makes her opinions so obvious. Here's the first sentence of the book: "A surging seething crowd of beings that are human only in name, for to the eye and ear they seem naught but savage creatures, animated by vile passions and by the lust of vengeance and of hate." That's the people of Paris, according to Orczy. And what is this surging mass doing? Why, it's butchering aristocrats of course-men, women, and children. Hundreds of them every day, as Orczy would have it. She takes the Dickens bit about Madame Defarge knitting while the heads roll and runs wild with it. She has a whole row of hideous old hags, sporting crops of human hair taken from the guillotine's victims, all of them sitting in front of the device, knitting, and watching it go to work. They are so close, in fact, that they are sprayed periodically with blood. Of course, even your most bloodthirsty revolutionary would, in real life, probably object to being sprayed with human blood, but not so in Orczy's book.
And of course, the ones responsible for all of this are the people. Orczy's look at the working class of Paris is wildly offensive and reactionary. They are portrayed as sadistic, unfeeling, filthy, stinking, and evil-minded. Orczy's point is obvious enough: give the people an inch and they'll take a mile. Once they lose their fear and awe of the rich and powerful they become capable of anything. This is, of course, undemocratic and offensive, but it's also bad history, as I will explain later. But now, back to the novel.

After that lovely little glance at Parisian politics, the novel focuses on a little English inn. The working classes are where they ought to be-serving food to lords and ladies. And everyone is all the happier for it, according to the Baroness. Meanwhile, we are introduced to the League of the Scarlet Pimpernel, which is made up of English aristocrats-various sirs and lords who get their kicks saving other rich people from the guillotine. It's the sort of class solidarity Marx would have loved had it been the working class instead of the landed gentry. The League has recently rescued an aristocratic family from certain doom. Because the League, of course, is English. And because it is made up of fine, upstanding gentlemen with a code of honor and a family name. The Baroness was writing for an English audience and, as such, she reads like an extreme jingo chauvinist. There are all kinds of remarks about "free, honest England," and about the noble English character. A character which would never be sullied by revolution like those demmed Frenchies.

We meet Marguerite, her brother Armand, and the wicked Chauvelin, who "despised all social inequalities." This is added not as a compliment, but as evidence of his evil mind. Chauvelin, by the way, is a likeable outsider in high London society. He is a visiting French diplomat trapped in a world of wealthy English hypocrites with powdered wigs and upturned noses. (Percy Blakeney is, we are told, the wealthiest man in England. Every one of his outfits is described in a lengthy paragraph, and his wealth is worshipped and adored by the author at every opportunity.) But if we feel for Chauvelin, the Baroness quickly makes sure to crush that sympathy. He obtains compromising information about Marguerite's brother and asks her to spy on the Scarlet Pimpernel in return for his safety. Most of the novel deals with this dilemma, which eventually leads her to run to France in order to save the two men, one of whom turns out to be her husband. The Scarlet Pimpernel tricks Chauvelin again and again before finally escaping aboard his luxury yacht with another batch of aristocrats. We hear more about his sumptuous outfit, and that is literally how the novel ends.

But before this happens, we get to see more of revolutionary France. The Baroness' portrayal of it is frankly ridiculous. First of all, she assumes that everyone must be miserable and downcast. They all look at one another with suspicious, angry glares. And of course, the biggest scandal of all is that the people don't show the proper deference to the visiting English gentry now that they are equal citizens. No bowing and scraping greets Sir Andrew and Lady Blakeney when they arrive in Calais. The impudent rogues! Orczy also takes it for granted that the common folk of France live in filth and stink to high heaven. She writes of how the people think they can be rude to the gentry now that they are free citizens. This strikes her as very funny, so she repeats it again. And again. Just as she repeats everything.

The Baroness is entirely pro-aristocrat, although she also sympathizes with the wealthy bourgeoisie. If I had to describe her politics, they would probably be bourgeois liberal in the nineteenth-century sense. She is mildly opposed to feudalism, and she is ostensibly opposed to anti-Semitism, although there is a bit of it in her own writing. But she fears democracy and hates the working classes. The only time she criticizes the aristocracy, even vaguely, is when she accuses them of behaving snobbishly toward the bourgeoisie. She doesn't include even a single cursory word about the starving peasants or the poor people of Paris struggling to pay for bread. She is totally uninterested in the awful plight of the French people under the monarchy and the aristocracy, and she portrays the working classes as violent, evil scoundrels. This is the image of the revolution and the Reign of Terror we have inherited-an angry, vicious mob gone wild, guillotining their social "betters."
But none of it's true! First of all, England was not "free and honest" at the time.

The British working class still didn't have the vote at the time of the French Revolution, and the government was busy cracking down hard on any criticism of its policies. As for French history, the Baroness doesn't even seem to know what the Reign of Terror actually was, although she loves to use the phrase. She puts it in the year 1792, even though the actual Reign of Terror didn't start until 1793. She claims that it "culminated in the bloody September Massacres," at one point. What? The September Massacres were a horrible series of mob attacks on prisoners, but they had little to do with the later Reign of Terror or with the revolutionary government. Orczy is just fond of them, no doubt, because they help along her theory of the working classes as dangerous rascals. What's more, the Reign of Terror had little to do with the aristocracy. Rather, it was a power struggle within the revolutionary government itself. The chief victims were the Girondists-a rival sect opposed to the Jacobins. The other chief victims were the people, by the way, not the landed gentry.

For instance, the worst violence of the period came as the result of a peasant revolt against the revolutionary government. The Jacobins responded on one occasion by murdering four hundred peasants in a mass drowning. The revolutionary government also used broad dictatorial powers, which were a direct betrayal of the republic and the people.
That's the lesson to take from the Reign of Terror: that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. The working classes were not responsible for the violence: they were hurt by it. But Orczy's interpretation of it is still the one that gets passed along. It's an inversion of where our sympathies ought to lie. It makes us sympathize with the oppressors, with the monarchs and the aristocracy, with the enemies of the people. What's more, it suggests that whenever working class people make the decisions, all of society descends into chaos. A lot of people still entertain that view, even in democratic countries. Orczy tells us a false version of events. And why? Because the French Revolution unleashed the anger of the people. The same anger, no doubt, that drove her from Hungary as a young girl.